Posted on 08/21/2008 1:17:19 PM PDT by kellynla
The Catholic Left is hanging itself right before our eyes. Having never come to grips with the Church's teachings on sexuality, they are now tightening the noose on themselves in public. It is not a pretty sight. This month alone they have embroiled themselves in a debate with three separate archbishops, with no end in sight.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City recently rebuked Catholic Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius for vetoing a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers. Indeed, he publicly urged her not to go to Communion. The archbishop was not shooting from the hip: He has met with Sebelius on several occasions regarding her pro-abortion position.
Catholic Left apologists like Catholic Democrats have blasted Archbishop Naumann for doing his job. But in doing so, they have exposed themselves as lining up behind a public official whose record on abortion makes a mockery of their game plan to reduce abortions.
When pressed on the subject, the Catholic Left likes to say that the best way to reduce abortions is through education and adoption. But the bill that Sebelius vetoed mandated that doctors using ultrasounds or monitoring the heartbeat of unborn babies had to make the information available to women at least 30 minutes prior to the abortion. That was not the kind of education that Sebelius had in mind. Looks like some on the "pro-choice" side really would prefer to narrow choices for women.
Another "choice" that Sebelius made for pregnant women was her decision to veto a grant-matching program for crisis pregnancy centers in 2003. Yet all we hear from the Catholic Left is their support for abortion alternatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
ping
Catholic left? Shouldn’t that be an oxymoron like Christian Communists?
Hey Cathoic and pro life ping I think we are seeing demise of Cathoic left as we know it
Actually, the first Christians were also the first Communists:
Acts 4:
“32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”
Just sayin’. ;)
I really don’t get why these people don’t seem to understand that nobody is forcing them to be Catholic. Those days are long past.
Communism deliberately requires that one not believe in God, so while the early Christians were communal, do not mistake this for Communism.
I prefer the term "Commie Catholics".
I am not Catholic. But I don’t see why the Church suffers disobedient pro-abortion Catholics. Here is an excerpt from the Examination of Conscience in Preparation for the Sacrament of Penance.
The Fifth Commandment:
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Have you in any way caused the death of another by neglect or by positive act? Have you unjustly wounded another by word or deed? Have you struck another in anger? Have you born a grudge, hatred or malice toward another? Have you been purposefully unkind? Have you, by word or deed, caused anyone sorrow in order to protect your own interests? Have you refused to forgive? Have you refused to apologize to those whom you have unjustly wounded by word or deed, or make other acts of reparation to them? Have you ridiculed others who did not want to commit a sin or were sorry for their sins? Have you respected the health of others by avoiding contact with people when you are sick? Have you coerced anyone, assisted at or sought to procure a medical or self-imposed abortion of an unborn child?
And they were 'communists' (holding all their goods in community) strictly by their own choice, and their God was the Only, True God - and not the god of the State, or man-centered government...
Depends on what you mean by Communist. Typically, when one uses that term, it refers to a system of government where people are forced to 'share'. If that is what is meant by the term, then it certainly doesn't fit those first century Christians.
nonsense.
It is a common confusion with a vow of poverty.
The “christian left” is communists who are atheists willing to lie about their religious position.
This is like the liberation theology of south america which was just bloody marxists lying in order to coopt christianity.
The first Christians were NOT communists.
No, what I mean by “communist” is one who lives in, or supports living in a communal culture. And if perfectly applied, it would be totally voluntary, as it was with the early Christians.
But I don’t think Communism would work unless the “leader” were God himself. In fact, in a way, heaven is closer to communism than capitalism, at least as described in the bible.
One thing it aint is a democracy. I do not expect to be voting for “God” for a term.
>>It is a common confusion with a vow of poverty.<<
What I was reading in Acts 4 had nothing whatsoever to do with a vow of poverty.
I see heaven as very, VERY communal.
>>The first Christians were NOT communists.<<
Acts 4: 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
According to Dictionary.com’s first definition (before the word “or”) they kinda were, actually:
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
There have been "many" reasonably successful religious "commune-ist" groups. Successful at least for a while. The early Puritans tried it, the Shakers tried it, the Amana communities tried it, and, as mentioned above, the "first Christians" tried it. Eventually, though, they all failed and dissolved. The only difference between religious "commune-ists" and political Communists, is that the death toll is a LOT less with the religious groups (not zero, though---I think that Jim Jones thing down in Central America was one of the religious "commune-ists").
>>Depends on what you mean by Communist. Typically, when one uses that term, it refers to a system of government where people are forced to ‘share’. If that is what is meant by the term, then it certainly doesn’t fit those first century Christians.<<
I agree with that. When I use the word I usually think of the root word, as a social order, as opposed to a form of government. All the “Communist” governments I know of were actually socialist.
I have no objection if a group of like-minded people wish to form a voluntary association to care for the needy, pool their wealth, smoke bongs or whatever. Some take it a step further to communal living and having all things in common.
This has been tried numerous times in history including the early church, as you point out, and it has usually failed. Examples abound even in American history-- the Jamestown Colony, the Mayflower settlers, the Icarians, the Mormon United Order, the Oneida Colonies, even the modern Amish Communities to some extent, etc.
Communism is not based on voluntary association where people are free to join or leave the order. It is based on force and compulsion. It is the antithesis of Christ and Christianity. Even an apostate Baptist like Mike Huckabee understands this, so he has to cloak his message in populism and high sounding talk about responsibility to the planet and to our fellow men.
“...Actually, the first Christians were also the first Communists...”
Yo, Robbie Roy...
NO ONE was holding a spear/arrow/gladius to their heads and forcing them to share hard-earned wages with anyone...
They did it because they wanted to, out of decency, charity (and probably economic necessity), from their hearts. But you know this!!!
By the way - “Rob Roy” was a GREAT movie!!!!!
Liam Neeson was excellent, and was it Tim Roth as the villain???? Great swordplay.
the emotional defect is no respecter of creed.
There's a difference. They weren't forced to do this. They did it out of love for one another, just as Christians do today.
The difference between Christianity and communism is night and day, most certainly to God, who reads hearts. Christians share willingly. Communist states compel people to share.
You can believe what you want but the way Communism is understood in today’s terms, there is NO connection; none. None. What are you trying to prove anyway?
Were they atheists?
Paved Paradise: You can believe what you want but the way Communism is understood in today’s terms, there is NO connection; none. None. What are you trying to prove anyway?
Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you on this point. RobRoy made the valid observation that the Church in Acts 4 could be described as 'communist' in government:
Acts 4:32-35 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Thus sayeth Scripture. And Scripture is Truth.
So how do we react? Cross these verses out our Bibles?
No, acknowledge it was the case -- but understand the differences with today. As I pointed out in my earlier post - these people participated in this form of 'communism' by their own choice. Not at the end of gun. Their God was the only True God - the God of the Bible. Not the god of the State, or big government. The difference between the form of 'communism' in Acts 4:32-35 and the communism of the 20th Century - with over 100 million killed to the gods of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il, etc is spelled out in Acts 4:31:
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
These people were filled with the Holy Ghost.
Man-centric 'communism' is filled by that 'other' spirit (aka, "spiritual wickedness in high places")...
The fact is that we need to learn from history. Yes, it is true that in this ~34 AD timeframe - through the working of the Holy Spirit, and sold out convinced Believers (who also believed Christ's return was imminent) - communism actually worked...But consider the next two millenia. It has been an utter absolute failure. Even when we consider the very godly Puritans who settled at Plymouth Rock. They initially tried this communism gig, and they nearly starved to death. To their credit, they chucked this ill-advised experiment after one season and adopted the free-enterprise/private property system - and flourished. And then we had the very ungodly men of the 20th Century - who turned countries that were enslaved by communism into a living hell...
So learning from history we can say that unless the Holy Spirit is actively running the Government - Communism is a disaster. It doesn't work. Man, being naturally depraved, will abuse the system - setting up man as god (the leaders of the government), and also as 'beast' (the faceless and soulless worker bees)....
So to summarize - I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Just acknowledging that , 'yes, communism was in effect in the New Testament church' -- but that the last 2000 years of various attempts at communism has always led to disasters. And a simple understanding and acknowledgment of man's nature will lead to an understanding why this is so. Communism will never work, and will always lead to enslavement - until the coming again of the King when the Holy Spirit will rule in all of our lives.
Speaking as the past co-chair of Catholics Against Kerry I predict that Obama will not break 40% with Catholics. This will be a new low and set the Democrats back for several cycles among true Catholics.
See post 16
See post 16. ;)
I agree, see post 16 though.
See post 16.
I cannot argue with your point. Your last paragraph, in particular, is not only well said, but very true. I believe it as well.
I have an issue with the word “communism” because in its modern sense, it is not understood in the way perhaps it was intended, and, so, like many words, it’s meaning has changed.
I consider communism a Godless, fruitless, and very evil thing. But, as you said, considering the spirit and nature of men (ourselves), it never will work.
It might be more accurate to say that the early Christians "practiced communism."
If you look at the definitions of communist you'll see that most of the definitions mention more than someone holding property in common.
That’s sewper! I was using the dictionary.com definition of what, outside the political theory, communism is at it’s core.
This is starting to look like the ole wonders vs oneders thing...
What a difference a "T"* makes. :-)
(*A "T" instead of an "M," that is.)
Yes, it is true that the Church described in Acts 4:32 is an example of a communist society. I am willing to acknowledge that there were two times in the history of mankind that communism actually worked:
1) Prior to the Fall.
2) The Church (the community of Believers) described in Acts 4:32.
Twice in the entire history of mankind it worked.
All other instances: A complete and utter disaster. There is no other form of government that deserves such disdain and rejection. Over one hundred million killed by malice, neglect, greed, incompetence (Mao's wonderful 'industrial revolution', and the Soviet Union's great ventures in economic planning starved tens of millions), and hatred of mankind. Anyone who tries to foist the Acts 4:24 Church as an example of Communism in action needs to have it drilled into their head that it was a unique perturbation - Not a possibility with the current state of man.
What was the difference in the two cases where communism 'worked'? - God HIMSELF was the Head of the Government. In one case (pre-Fall), the people themselves were perfect. In the second case (Acts 4:31), the people were all filled with the Holy Spirit...
But where sin is active, and where not all men are Believers -- we have ample evidence of what happens when this form of government is followed -- a descent into a man-made hell on earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.